Social impact theory

Social impact theory

Social impact theory is a model that conceives of influence from other people as being the result of social forces (pressures from other people) acting on individuals, much as physical forces can affect an object. It predicts that conformity will increase with increasing strength, immediacy and the number of influence in a group.

Strength refers to the intensity of each social force, and is reflected by one’s social status, power and credibility. Therefore, the greater the power difference between the sources and the target, the more influence they have on the target, which eventually leads to a greater likelihood to conform. Immediacy refers to the physical or psychological closeness of each social force to the target. The theory suggested that if the target perceives the physical and psychological distance of the sources of influence to be close to him or her, the greater the probability that he or she will conform to the social influences. Number refers to the quantity of social forces present, thus more sources trying to influence a target (e.g. ten friends) will produce a better result, compared to fewer sources of influences (e.g. one friend).

To further illustrate the theory, I have chosen the example of one of the most important decision made by the founder of the Han dynasty, Emperor Han Gao Zu or Liu Bang, to eliminate and dethrone his fiercest and most powerful rival, Xiang Yu, who gave himself the title: Hegemon-King of Western Chu. This was actually one of the TV series I watched last term, therefore the event might be fictional, but nevertheless, it serves as a wonderful depiction of the social impact theory. Therefore, I will try my best to retrospectively describe the event to the best of my knowledge, so as to give you all a clear picture of what is going on.

During that time, Xiang Yu was holding most of the political and military power, while Liu Bang, both his friend and rival, was the ruler of a few states in imperial China. After several years of war, they finally agreed to divide China equally among themselves, thus proclaiming the reunion of friendship and the end of the war. Both Xiang Yu and Liu Bang were satisfied with the land they occupied.

Although Xiang Yu was a superior commander of the military, his impetuous nature and poor diplomacy eventually brought about his downfall, as most people actually favors the more benevolent Liu Bang to be their King. Seeing this as an opportunity to seize the power to reunify China, his wife Lu Zhi and advisor Han Xing, persuaded Liu Bang to launch a surprise attack on Xiang Yu’s army.

Despite their persuasion, Liu Bang refused to plot against Xiang Yu out of friendship. However, in order to get him to agree with their plans to dethrone Xiang Yu, his family including his wife, children and parents, his friends and other generals kneeled outside his living quarter to persuade him to make a wise decision in attacking Xiang Yu. After about one day, Liu Bang finally conformed to the social pressure asserted by his family and friends, and commanded Han Xing to lead his forces to attack Xiang Yu.

Using the social impact theory to explain Liu Bang’s actions, we can see the large amount of social pressure he is experiencing while making his decision. His wife, Lu Zhi and his children, as well as his aging parents are examples of social forces that have close psychological proximity with him, thus increasing the immediacy of social influence on him. Moreover, since China was traditionally influenced by Confucian philosophy, which emphasized respect and filial piety to parents, Liu Bang’s parents enhances the strength of the social forces as they are embodiments of social status and power that exerts immeasurable social influence on him. Apart from these, the fact that all of them are kneeling outside his room reflected the close physical proximity, which would also partly account for his change in decision. Finally, the presence of numerous figures outside Liu Bang’s living quarter largely increases the number of sources of influences that results in his conformity towards their plans. This is a particularly interesting example of the social impact theory, which shows that even power holders are susceptible to social influences and conformity.

The bystander effect

The bystander effect

One of the most interesting phenomenons in social psychology is the bystander effect, which states that the likelihood that an individual will intervene in an emergency goes down as the number of bystanders increases. In other words, there is a lower probability that a specific person will intervene and help a victim in an emergency when there are many people around, as compared to when he or she is alone facing the victim.

This is because we often base our judgment and interpretation about an event or a person on the reactions of other people. Thus, we rely heavily on others as a source of information because of informational influence, as we are motivated by a desire to be correct and to obtain valid information, especially when the situation is ambiguous and we are unsure about how to react. Hence, if other bystander does nothing to help to the victim, we may interpret that the victim is probably fine and that it might not be an emergency after all.

Another reason to account for the bystander effect is the diffusion of personal responsibility, when other people are present in an emergency situation. Since there is more than one bystander, their sense of personal responsibility creases as they rationalized that it’s not their responsibility to attend to the victim and that their help is not needed as other people might provide assistance to the victim as well.

The following report is taken from The New Paper on 22nd March this year.

Brief description of the case:

A local secondary school girl was assaulted by her schoolmates just after school and was beaten up so badly that she has to be admitted to a hospital immediately. Her attackers used to be her friends since last year; however, they apparently fell out when the she wanted to leave the group, as she decided to concentrate on her studies. What’s more surprising was that she was attacked in front of over a dozen onlookers, who are also her schoolmates, but no one did anything to prevent or stop the assault, which leave the victim with bruises all over her forehead, arms and legs. Despite her cries for help, none of the bystanders provide any assistance to her and instead, some even use their handphone cameras to film the attack. The victim’s ordeal ended when her attackers escaped upon hearing someone’s shout that the police were coming.

This is a typical example of the bystander effect in action. Since the victim and her attackers, as well as the bystanders, were schoolmates and used to be friends, the question then is why none of her schoolmates stand out and stop the assault? Aren’t friends supposed to help each other?

Analyzing the case in a social psychological perspective, I would attribute the behaviors of the onlookers as a manifestation of the bystander effect. First of all, according to the report, there are about 15 bystanders at the scene, when the victim was assaulted. As we all know, the probability that any bystander would intervene decreases as the number of bystander increases. Therefore, the likelihood that the victim would receive help in this case, is rather slim in the first place. Secondly, due to the large group of bystanders, most of them experienced responsibility diffusion, as they felt less personal responsibility for helping the victim. Thirdly, besides informational influence, the bystanders were also held back by normative influence, as they wanted to be liked by their in-group members and continue to remain in the group so as to avoid conflict, even though they might not necessarily think that the violent behaviors are justifiable and correct. Lastly, after accepting personal responsibility to help the victim, the bystander also has to decide on an appropriate form of assistance before taking actions. Simply jumping into the scene and prevent the attack from happening might not be the best way to intervene, as he or she might get attacked as well. Although the newspaper report did not further elaborate on who shouted for the police and stopped the assault, I believe it was one of the bystander, who has finally made a wise decision.

Bibliography

Chan, C. (2008, March 22). Despite her cries for help, schoolmates just stand and film attack.
The New Paper, pp. 2-3.

Self-presentation & impression management

Self-presentation & impression management

Since all of us are social creatures, explicit behaviors such as the way we talk and behave might form enduring impressions about us on the other people, influencing their thoughts and feelings about us, and subsequently their impressions and behaviors towards us.

During social interaction, we may consciously or sub-consciously control our own behaviors to portray a certain image to others and try to manipulate their impression towards us. This deliberate control of our public behavior to create a certain impression in other people is called self-presentation and also impression management, since we “present” the self to others, in order to “manage” their impression on us.

However, we do not have to constantly monitor our behaviors and try to make impressions upon others, sometimes we behave in spontaneous, open and unrestrained fashion, especially when we are on our own. Therefore, most sociologists and social psychologists believe that we are selective actors, who adopt deliberate guises to achieve particular goals when the situation calls for it.

While the most prominent and prevailing self-presentation goals are to appear likable and competent to those around them, people might strive to appear dangerous or strong at times, to intimidate others, or moral and virtuous, to impress people in different situations. These self-presentation goals have important survival values for us, as we seek to increase our self-esteem and to protect ourselves. However, does self-presentation goals that devaluate one’s capability, ambitions and lower one’s self-esteem have any implication on the survival values of our kind?

To illustrate my point, I have adapted a chapter as an example from the famous Chinese novel: Romance of the Three Kingdoms. In this particular chapter, Liu Bei, a general in that era, was officially recognized by Emperor Xian as one of his distant relatives, thus raising his political power and status in the capital. Fearing that his rise in power might rouse the suspicion of the fearsome Premier Cao Cao, he avoided taking part in any political meetings and discussions in the government, choosing instead to remain at home, tending to his plants and agriculture. The objective of such action was to manage and give the impression that Liu Bei lacked ambition and was satisfied with his current lifestyle. When Cao Cao visited him, Liu Bei lowered his pride and denied himself of any capability to lead a rebellion against the Premier’s power, and pretended to be timid as he claimed that he was afraid of the thunder that resonated across the rainy sky that day. As a result, his life was spared that day as he successfully avoided Cao Cao’s suspicion by devaluating his capabilities, showing his incompetence and presenting himself as humble and timid, rather than giving the impression that he is ambitious and strong.

This story have indeed shown that not only raising our self-esteem and appearing likable and competent would help us, we can also protect ourselves by lowering our self-esteem, appearing incompetent and timid as opposed to giving the impression of being strong and dangerous to intimidate others. Therefore, although we virtually always want to be seen as competent, motivated and intelligent, sometimes taking a step back and “act blur” a bit can be advantageous to ourselves. Nevertheless, we are still managing other’s impression of ourselves by deliberately presenting and controlling our behaviors when interacting with them.

Heuristic Persuasion: Soft Selling

Heuristic Persuasion: Soft Selling

Heuristics are informal rules or shortcuts that are used to make everyday judgments, as we cannot afford to expend large amount of time and energy on every single detail or judgment in our life. Therefore, they act as “rules of thumb” or simplifying strategies to aid us in our reasonable guesses and judgments of events quickly.

Heuristic persuasion thus focuses on inducing attitude change or altering an individual’s evaluation of a target through the use of heuristics. Since we do not usually exert a lot of psychological resources to judge the validity of a persuasive message, unless it has significant importance to us, we often relies on superficial cues and heuristics to assume its validity. Because of this, soft selling has become a popular advertising strategy with some advertisers. It is an advertising strategy that relies on the use of images, emotions, symbols, or values to promote a product. A local example of the selling strategy can be found at the link below http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2TORg62sn8

This M1 advertisement promoting free IDD calls has attracted many viewers and was evaluated positively by many people, especially locals. The M1 TV ad presented a humorous gimmick that intended to make the audience feel good, arouse positive emotions from them and associate these feelings with their IDD service. Hopefully, the positive affect generated would influence their attitudes towards M1 services, and motivate them to subscribe to their service, which would definitely increase their sales and revenues. In a way, the soft selling method is a type of evaluative conditioning that brings about attitude change of the consumer through the use of heuristics. For example, people might walk pass a M1 retail shop or even having their morning roti prata at an Indian restaurant and suddenly be reminded of the TV ad, thus generating and associating positive feelings towards M1 services or products and changing their attitude towards them. Soft selling is commonly used through multimedia platforms such as the internet and TV.

Although, information-based persuasion can produce a more enduring attitude change in people, not all people would spend large amount of time evaluating on a product advertised during TV commercial. In addition, there is a restricted amount of time allocated for TV commercials and attention spans of the audience are also limited. Moreover, the repetition of advertisements during TV commercials also enhances chances of availability heuristics, which is the tendency to base a judgment on how easily relevant examples can be generated. Consequently, the more frequent the ad is shown, the more easily consumers are able to access them in their memory, thus promoting their chances of changing their attitude and purchasing the product advertised. Therefore, most TV commercial ads rely heavily on heuristic persuasions to capture the attention of the viewers as opposed to the traditional way of hard selling by bombarding consumers with information.

Just world theory: Antisocial vs prosocial behaviour

Just world theory: Antisocial vs prosocial behaviour

The just world theory postulated that humans need to believe that the world is a fair place where people generally get what they deserve: hard work and honesty reaps rewards, while laziness and dishonesty deserve punishment. Conversely, if we believe that the world is unjust, we would fear that our efforts and investment might be in vain and that hardworking people might never succeed. This negative assumption is not only unproductive, but also threatening and anxiety-provoking, thus we tend to defend and protect our belief in a fair and just world by either helping or blaming the victim.

The case study on a local accident below was taken from The New Paper on 21st February this year.

Brief description of the case:

When Ms Atika and her friends pulled over to help the victims of the automobile accident, she asked the bystander, a man in his 50s who arrived before them, to call for the police, while she get the ambulance. However, despite holding to his handphone, the man refused to help and suggested that she call the police instead. In addition to the misery of the distressed victims, he even discouraged his female companion from offering water to them. He also commented that it was only a “small accident” and told Ms Atika “not to worry” before leaving. This inconsiderate behaviour greatly infuriated and disgusted Ms Atika as the “small accident” claimed two lives and injured two others. It was not known if the man had witnessed the accident or how long had he been there before Ms Atika and her friends arrived, nevertheless, he could have made a difference if he had seek for help earlier.

The case study clearly depicted two contrasting social behaviours exhibited by Ms Atika (prosocial) and the inconsiderate man (antisocial). To explain and account for the behaviours they exhibited, we shall apply the just world theory into the study. When Ms Atika attend to the victims of the car accident, she saw them suffering innocently, thus threatening her belief that only bad people suffer in a just world. This discrepancy between thoughts and reality invoked a state of anxiety, which then motivated her helpful prosocial behaviour to restore justice to the situation.

On the other hand, the just world belief held by the man might interfere and prevented him from helping the victims altogether. In this case, the man might rationalize that the victims are blameworthy and that they deserve to suffer, therefore justifying his own inaction and at the same time maintaining his belief in a just world. This is especially true in an emergency situation, when victims cannot be help easily or when their sufferings are expected to continue despite receiving help. The scene of accident victims suffering was disturbing and threatening to the logic of a fair and just world, therefore in order to protect his own belief, he might change his attitude to the victims, convincing himself that the victims are “bad people” who are responsible for their own sufferings, thus not worthy of his help.

This is an example involving the application of the just world theory, by analyzing the situation and explaining the rationale behind their behaviours, we are able to gain deeper insight into what seems like a superficial act of negligence and antisocial behaviour. However, this reasoning is just my speculation and they may not actually reflect the thoughts of the characters in the case study. Human helping behaviors are complex and involve a myriad of other factors including, social and cultural factors, time, mood, guilt and individual personality. Therefore, unless the people in the case study explain themselves, we might never understand why such behaviours occur or what are they thinking when they decided to help or blame the victims.

Before I read up on the just world theory, I thought that it was just some other well-thought theory explaining some social phenomenon. Upon further investigation, I realized that it was more than some social phenomenon; rather it encompasses more deeply rooted cultural teachings and philosophy. Everyone in the world is subjected to the just world belief, where good triumph against the evil, honesty prevails over greed and the hardworking people are rewarded while the lazy worker are punished. Can you imagine a world without a social philosophy and belief in a just world? People will engage in more unethical behaviours and tend to be less hardworking as they belief that hard work does not necessarily contribute to success. Therefore, it is important that people protect their own beliefs in a just world for the proper functioning and integrity of the society. However, the cruel truth that underlies the just world theory is that people may become unsympathetic towards innocent victims of tragedies like the man in the case study.

Bibliography

Lim, C. (2008, February 21). Passer-by witnesses heartless behaviour: Bochap uncle makes her
blood boil. The New Paper, pp. 2-3.